[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Mon May 11 19:19:39 CEST 2015
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:58:46PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: >As Nick states, "I'd be interested to see a real life addressing plan which >needed more than this amount of bit space." I'd actually be interested to >see a real life addressing plan that needed a /32 bit address space, where >the need isn't constructed based on the mere possibility of getting that >space instead of merely e.g. a few hundre million times of the entire IPv4 >space. The way I read the proposal, it is not about assignment sizes but about a "aggregation" vs "conservation" conflict. The proponents have, AIUI, a problem where they might not fully assign a /32 or /29 allocation but have different routing policies for parts of their network, which cannot be satisfied without violating s3.4 of ripe-641. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]